The only cases in which a change in the number of chromosomes was recorded resulted in subject sterility, that is, the subject was unable to reproduce.

I believe in adaption, not evolution. I do not believe that adaption ever gets to the point of creating new species. If that were true, we'd be able to reproduce mules, but we can't.

Maybe God exists in 4 dimensions.

What do the dimensions have to do with how long god has existed?

Who knows? And in this case, who cares? I will point out that it is logically absurd/ redundant to believe in something before this creating force; you keep coming up with " who creating it" extending ad infinitum. My belief is that potential has always existed ( it must) and there has always existed an (emotional+ logical) potential force inside it controlling all that happens.

If you're basing your belief on what you believe to exist off of how it can exist ( as in what can or does cause it), you're looking at it the wrong way( and are, without any doubt or shame on my part, entirely wrong if you are an atheist).

"How can you tell" is the wrong question to want to be asking in providing answers. It's a matter of simple consideration: I assume I and the world as I see it necessarily exists. Because it exists it must have an origin. Can something come from nothing? Nope. Not a chance in hell, heaven, or in a sensible person's mind--NONE. Think about it. Is it conceivably possible for something to be without a sufficient cause in the observable world? No, of course not--it's self-evident. Now, if this doesn't extend to the origin of the observable world, consider how something--any object or property-- can exist from nothing. It is impossible for it to always have been in all potential reality--IMPOSSIBLE. Nothing is nothing: absolutely NO potential force; therefore, nothing can't cause what we see. And, therefore, because it's inconceivable for all potential to exist independantly from reality, the physical world can't just have always been.

( in principle, I would probably have to conclude that it's inconceivable for any potential force to exist independently from reality.)

How could God have always been? I'll ask this. How can God not?

Think in terms of " how possible is it to be otherwise?" as well as " prove with direct evidence and establish this; move forward and continue the process."--which is what you guys are doing, it seems.

Scientific law is 100 percent USELESS in the meta-physical realm--that which extends before time began. A non-physical force can create matter/energy.

Besides, the law of mass/energy conservation is really that " it's inconceivable for anything to exist as a truly fundamental physical property/ object instead of matter and energy.", if you gave it thought.

1.The physical world is something that exists.
2. Everything that exists must have a sufficient cause, unless it exists along with/ dependent on potential, forming reality. (self-evident)
3. 2. Extends to all conceivability( self-evident).
4. A God/ potential force is conceivable.
5. Therefore, God consists of one of the qualities mentioned in 2.
6. Infinite entities cannot have been created, for creation denotes forces beyond your power that you can't encompass. (self-evident)
7. If God is an infinite entity "He" cannot have a [sufficient] cause.
8. Therefore, this type of God must have always existed with potential.
9. Matter and energy are the fundamental properties/ objects of the physical world.
10. Therefore, matter/ energy are a part of that which needs a sufficient cause.
11. True nothingness has no potential force; therefore, the physical world cannot come from nothing.
12. Because 1.,2.,10., and 11., the physical world can't have always been, needing a greater force.

This is a little sloppy, but it gets the job done.

Your last sentence is not only one like an immature, inconsiderate child, but is necessarily wrong. Nothing can't "commit suicide" in any sense; it needs potential force to perform any action, removing the "nothingness" quality from it, making it something ( obviously, not-nothing is something).

I've just read a post that AJ made to me on like page 2 and I wanted to respond to that so you guys can ignore this and keep going with your little debate that has gone on way too long and in too many threads.


Discordianism, AJ, is not a "joke" (or maybe it is? Maybe religion itself is an elaborate joke) and when you made that post a long time ago you probably had no idea what you were talking about. Discordianism isn't a primary religion, it's more like a companion "religion". Discordians don't usually believe solely in that. If anything, Discordianism embraces whatever religion you want to believe in and enhances the experience for you.

Just because I don't follow a text word for word does not mean I'm any less Christian than you. You're not the alpha-Christian. Also: you said long ago that you interpret the bible in your own way, so why would you insult someone elses interpretation? Because it's not as Christian as yours?

And it's dumb and really, just downright cruel, to try to put someone down for believing in God in his or her own way. It's been a while and my memory is a bit hazy but did you not imply I'm not a Christian at first? And did you not go on later to say that I'm a "Christian-Liberal" at best, as if that's an insult somehow?

Actually, I said Liberal Christian, but close enough.

I'm not putting you down, but the thing that bothers me is that you pick the parts of the Bible to believe and embrace that you want. That's different than interpreting it for yourself. Non of the Bible is irrelevant to anyone's life, but many of us like to believe that parts of the Bible are not for us, but then go on and find parts that we feel fit for us, and I don't believe that's what God wants us to do.

Reading about Discordianism on Wikipedia, it's nothing how you describe it.

Not to insult you or any other Discordians, but it just does not seem like this could go hand in hand with Christianity to me. At all. And to be honest with you, it sounds like a cult to me, worshiping chaos and curses and whatnot.

Well it's funny because I DO believe that God wants us to be our own individuals. And dismiss what we don't agree with. Like, I follow the 10 commandments, not because I'm told to but because I agree (though obviously there is always exceptions to things). That is exactly what interpretation is. I interpret some as good, some as bad. Life itself is interpretation.

I won't argue that everything in the bible can fit into our lives but that doesn't mean I have to embrace everything that fits in. We need jobs to get by, doesn't mean I like the concept of jobs.


Did you pick and choose parts of the Discordian article to make your point and that's it? Cuz seriously man, in the second paragraph it says:
And you know what else, show the rest of what you were quoting.
Pretty true I'd say. Hell, they just laughed in the face of this thread.

And you know what! I think you're interpreting Discordianism differently than me! And that's okay! I was gonna comment on your chaos remark but have you read the Principia Discordia?

And you wanna know the REALLY GREAT THING about this? I don't agree with everything Discordians say either and THAT'S THE POINT!

It's only a cult in the same way Christianity is.

Edit: Also, fine sir, right on the back of the Principia Discordia it says "Jesus saves, but Eris is a better lay."

My guess is that AJ was using "religion" too loosely in place of "belief"--which is a common error.

I'll have to make a couple of objections here. One, he didn't explicitly say you're less of a Christian than him or not one at all, just that he didn't know how you call yourself a Christian while holding beliefs, one of which directly opposes an element of Christianity. Christianity might have a lot of debate over interpretation of a lot of scripture, but there is a strong set of principles by which some often thoroughly condemn for breaking. "Pro-choice" is anti-Biblical ( the basis of Christianity) in that the Bible explicitly says to not murder. Supporting choice in a matter of killing a fetus ( potential life--a concept that succeeds, what, 99 percent of the time?) is very unBiblical. The Bible says it is ethically wrong to murder, and I don't see how potential life is excluded out of the "murdered" category when killed.

Also, to put it plainly, you can very well be "less" of a Christian, depending on where you differ. If you disagree with a principle of being a "Christian", you are necessarily less of a Christian than someone to the extent of the significance of that principle in relation to belief as a whole.

I'm not any less Christian because I acknowledge the contradictions of girls, boys and the Bible.

Had a long response but that one sentence is all I need, and if you don't get that (along with my private message to you) then I'm not even bothering.

4th dimension is time. If you exist in 4 dimensions, you transcend time, and can move back and forth within it.

While we're on the subject of Christianity, I'd just like to point out an observation that I recently made:

And I'd like to say that Christian Philosophy is actually what I consider to be the one possible form of utopianism. The only issue is, people have to be very good (though not perfect). I say "very good", because you can wrong someone, but that is where the whole forgiveness part comes in. Christian philosophy is actually very similar to communism. The inherent difference between the two beliefs is, one provides free will, and the other does not. Sort of a Capitalist version of Communism. In communism, you serve the state, and do what it tells you. In Christianity, you do what you feel is best for you, in the service of a greater power. If it doesn't work out, those around you help you out, and you can move on. There is a distinct lack of structure in a Christian Society (hence "no hierarchy within the church"), whereas communism is infinitely structured.

Anyway, I while I think that church and state should be separate, for the purpose of stability, I still think that it would be a good thing if people at least recognized many of the Christian laws. Imagine if everyone actually gave 10% of their income to the poor. We could eliminate poverty entirely, and by extension, a great deal of global crime. If people stopped getting divorced and having affairs, kids would grow up in a stable environment, and again, this would result in a reduction of crime.
If everyone stopped having promiscuous sex, we wouldn't have any diseases, and if people didn't overindulge, we wouldn't have an epidemic of obese people. We wouldn't have any drug problems, any war, any poverty, or any disease.

You can denounce the religion, but you can't say that the belief itself wouldn't have positive effects, at least in theory.